Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Catholics Born Again? (Discussion is applicable to Orthodox and Mainline Protestants as well)
IgnatiusInsight.com ^ | Mark Brumley

Posted on 12/31/2008 4:38:01 AM PST by Huber

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: fortunate sun
You've told me all I need to know about where you stand with respect to the Word of God by comparing the Apostle Paul to Joseph Smith. You don't trust it. You trust in an earthly institution and would rather undermine the Word than undermine that institution. I can believe those things you say about Peter without having to put my faith in an earthly institution in the manner you require, and certainly without having to cast aside the words of an Apostle when they don't jibe with what I want to believe.

I don't worship the Bible as an object...I worship the Word contained therein because it is the Word of Truth. I don't set it upon an altar and kneel before it. I don't perform solemn rituals in its presence. I certainly don't look for imprints of my Bible in pieces of toast! :)

I have no interest in the "Christianity" you espouse when it involves wanton dismissal of the words of an Apostle just to suit your paradigm. I'm sorry Paul was bold enough to rebuke Peter when he was clearly wrong. Get over it. Cling to Christ, not to Peter.

51 posted on 01/01/2009 7:06:42 AM PST by Frumanchu (God's justice does not demand second chances)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

And that my good correspondent is how we shall leave it.
Enjoy a Blessed New Year.


52 posted on 01/01/2009 8:45:47 AM PST by fortunate sun (Tagline written in lemon juice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fortunate sun

Thanks. You too.


53 posted on 01/01/2009 8:50:22 AM PST by Frumanchu (God's justice does not demand second chances)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

>And they don’t accept the fact that the word “alone” was added to the Bible in the phrase, faith “alone” by Luther.

>Look it up.

And then, dear Salvation, look up the other luminaries of the ekklesia that ALSO added the alone.

Here let me help you with your fallacy:

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

-—From here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

Did you read this far? I am impressed. Now please allow yourself to take that little line of argumentation out of your apologia, thanks. Martin Luther contra Magisterium? No, actually he agreed with much of the earlier Catholic Church. I would say that the Catholic Church changed its tune when its authority was questioned and looked for anything to hang on the poor ex-monk.

Besides which, soon your church is going to change its mind (again) and make him a saint, praise ecumenicalism! I wonder, how many candles is the RCC going to light to him? I REALLY wonder how they are going to justify anathematizing him and then taking it back.


54 posted on 01/01/2009 10:08:47 AM PST by Ottofire (Philippians 1:21: For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

And I would like to apologize for the tone of the last post. It was smacking of sarcasm, and that is something which is not God glorifying.

Sorry, that “Look it up” comment sparked it. I humbly ask you to do the same.


55 posted on 01/01/2009 10:11:28 AM PST by Ottofire (Philippians 1:21: For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fortunate sun
***Roman Catholics follow, properly so, the Petrine Doctine. He was appointed by Jesus, Himself. Saul, not so much. ***

Paul was called out by our LORD himself to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. That is why Paul always refers to himself as “the Apostle to the Gentiles”.

Peter, James and John approved his message.

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

56 posted on 01/01/2009 1:20:11 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (NEVER FORGET TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fortunate sun

***Saul never met Jesus.***

Yes he did, on the road to Damascus and in the Temple.

Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Act 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

Act 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

Act 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

Act 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

Act 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.


57 posted on 01/01/2009 1:40:20 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (NEVER FORGET TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fortunate sun

***How does Saul differ from Joseph Smith? Perhaps mohammed?***

Paul’s message was accepted and approved by the Apostles...

Act 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

Act 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought [him] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

Act 9:28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

And again...winning freedom from Circumcision for the Gentile believers...

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

And again...

Act 21:18 And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.

Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood,


58 posted on 01/01/2009 1:56:11 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (NEVER FORGET TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953; annalex

***Peter preached the Holy Spirit brought conviction then Peter said repent be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit.

Without conviction and repentance their can not be the baptism of water and Spirit.

How many do you know followed that prescribed order? ***

We do know by reading that Cornelius the Gentile was given the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized. Peter even asked his fellows if they could forbid Cornelius to be baptized, and later had to defend his actions before the elders at Jerusalem.

Look at what point in Peter’s address that the Holy Spirit fell.

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

This one act throws all the baptismal demands for salvation into a cocked hat.


59 posted on 01/01/2009 2:08:09 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (NEVER FORGET TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: annalex

The point of the question asked was what does born again mean and it involves repentance. Therefore baptizing people who have not repented is a baptism in vain. Repentance is a changing of ones ways, and the only way one can truly change is through the power of the Holy Spirit in the new birth. The changing does not save one so as you said penance is salvific our actions do not save us it is the grace of God by the power of the Holy Spiritand the new birth. If one could work their way into heaven then there would be no need for the work of the Cross and the sacrifice of the true Lamb of God.


60 posted on 01/01/2009 2:49:00 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; guitarplayer1953

To receive the Holy Spirit is not the same as be cleansed from sin. Note however that baptism closely follows conversion in all these cases, and 1 Peter 3:21 is explicit about baptism having salvific nature.

The Protestants are confusing conversion — such as what happened to Cornelius — with being saved. The Holy Scripture and the Church never made this mistake. Baptism saves because it remits original sin and sins already committed. It does not guarantee against future sins and therefore does not guarantee that the baptized person is justified upon death.


61 posted on 01/01/2009 3:07:05 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
Therefore baptizing people who have not repented is a baptism in vain.

What makes you think I disagree?

our actions do not save us it is the grace of God by the power of the Holy Spiritand the new birth

What makes you think I disagree?

62 posted on 01/01/2009 3:08:53 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

I never said that baptism will save a person. I was trying in around about way to say that baptizing babies does not make one saved. Although I do believe that there is a special grace for children until the age of accountability. My point was that there must be repentance and babies don’t even know what that is. In my opinion baptism is a outward sign of a inward work of the H.S. Works do not save neither does baptism.


63 posted on 01/01/2009 3:43:01 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: annalex

1 Pet 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us— baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(NKJ)

499 antitupon (an-teet’-oo-pon);

neuter of a compound of 473 and 5179; corresponding [”antitype”], i.e. a representative, counterpart:

KJV— (like) figure (whereunto).


64 posted on 01/01/2009 3:59:09 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: annalex

****It does not guarantee against future sins and therefore does not guarantee that the baptized person is justified upon death.****

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS was written to show us we were allowed tohave ONE SIN after baptism. And Hermas was believed to be scripture for quite a few years in the early years of the church.

That is why so many, like Constanitne, waited till near death to get baptized, so there would be less sins after baptism.


65 posted on 01/01/2009 6:18:34 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

This “antetype” appears another time in the Scripture:

For Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true [antitypa ton alethinon]: but into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us. (Hebrews 9:24)

Note again, assertion of sacramentality.


66 posted on 01/01/2009 6:19:13 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Yes. It is incorrect — no sin or no amount of sins are greater than Christ’s mercy — but it sure illustrates that the Early Church understood Baptism as salvific and the process of salvation lasting a lifetime.


67 posted on 01/01/2009 6:21:09 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: annalex

***The Protestants are confusing conversion — such as what happened to Cornelius — with being saved. ****

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. ....


68 posted on 01/01/2009 6:23:39 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: fortunate sun; Frumanchu
Paul, a Johnny come lately....

Lets all get together and rip up our scriptures. Remove all the letters of Paul. Then we must remove the gospel of Luke and ACTS, as he was paul’s companion.
Then we must get rid of Mark as he is not mentioned anywhere else except in Acts and cause division between Paul and Barnabas so his “gospel” is not to be trusted.

All we will have is Matthew, John, James 1&2 Peter,1,2&3 John, Jude and Revelation.

The demands for baptism in Mark and Acts will be gone. Grace will be gone. We will be left with a judaized church preaching circumcision, sacrifices, law keeping and will probably not be open to the gentiles at all.

69 posted on 01/01/2009 6:39:26 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Does Messianic Judaism bother you?


70 posted on 01/01/2009 6:48:28 PM PST by fortunate sun (Tagline written in lemon juice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: fortunate sun

***Does Messianic Judaism bother you?***

Where would you offer your animal sacrifices as James told Paul to do. There isn’t a temple anymore.


71 posted on 01/01/2009 6:56:34 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Yes: this establishes that conversion (or if you will faith) and salvation are linked. It does not establish identity, because, for example,

he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. (Mt. 10:22, many similar)

by works a man is justified; and not by faith only (James 2:24)

Being saved is a process which culminates at particular jusdgement upon death. When understood as a process, it can be equated with conversion, also a continuing process. When understood as a final justification, it is not the same because people may lose faith (1 Timothy 1:19) as well as increase it.

SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

72 posted on 01/02/2009 12:38:43 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“How, then, should a Catholic answer the question, “Have you been born again?”

... exactly the way anyone should answer: Not your business.


73 posted on 01/02/2009 12:55:37 PM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Laur

Eh, no. It is the business of a Christian to evangelize. If the Holy Apostles kept their faith to themselves, we’d be doing human sacrifices at the Inca temple now.


74 posted on 01/02/2009 1:11:01 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: annalex

” It is the business of a Christian to evangelize. If the Holy Apostles kept their faith to themselves, we’d be doing human sacrifices at the Inca temple now.”

Finding the original question irrelevant doesn’t mean a person is keeping his faith hidden from view.


75 posted on 01/02/2009 2:17:37 PM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Laur
It is not irrelevant. According to the fundamentalist once-saved-always-saved viewpoint, it is a very relevant question; to dismiss the questioner who presumably has a sincere concern for your soul is churlish. The answer that the article recommends, -- I was baptised, which event put me on the road toward salvation and gave me hope of eternal life, -- is accurate and it gives the opportunity for the Catholic or Orthodox Christian to evangelize the questioner in the doctrines of our faith.

Sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).

76 posted on 01/02/2009 2:32:50 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“to dismiss the questioner who presumably has a sincere concern for your soul is churlish. The answer that the article recommends, — I was baptised, which event put me on the road toward salvation and gave me hope of eternal life, — is accurate and it gives the opportunity for the Catholic or Orthodox Christian to evangelize the questioner in the doctrines of our faith.”

First, I don’t assume that the person standing at my front door is as concerned about my well-being as he is in lording his view over mine and demonstrating that he can recite some scripture.

The same goes for many other people who ask about whether someone is a Christian, the implication being that if you have not been “born again,” you are not a member of the new club. Who knew that being a “Christian” was so exclusionary?

I have no problem w/ the explanation/response given in the post by the Catholic writer — if there’s an honest, sincere discussion of what “born again” might mean to different people. And it can mean many things. But in most cases, whether I consider myself born again or not is irrelevant to the person asking.

If a Catholic feels called upon to defend his position,I would simplify the answer by saying that each time he attends Mass and says “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again,” a re-affirmation of faith has been made. Some might even call that being born again.


77 posted on 01/02/2009 4:56:49 PM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Laur
lording his view over mine

Has never been my experience. I've been on the receiving end of Protestant, Mormon, and Jehovah Witness missionary effort many times and I my impression was always that people were sincere.

78 posted on 01/02/2009 7:57:43 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

Catholics are not "born again Christians".
Baptism takes care of the passage.
79 posted on 01/02/2009 8:04:07 PM PST by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“Has never been my experience. I’ve been on the receiving end of Protestant, Mormon, and Jehovah Witness missionary effort many times and I my impression was always that people were sincere.”

You are indeed fortunate, then. My own experience has been that even if you said you were “saved” (and I don’t even subscribe to that convenient notion), it doesn’t count unless you’re “saved” in that person’s particular way.

That’s when the scriptural citations are rolled out. Sincerity notwithstanding, I see it all too often as less interest in my salvation than in their pride and enthusiasm in demonstrating the ability to memorize selected portions of the Bible that serve their purposes at the moment.

I guess you need to meet one of my cousins and a former co-worker. lol.


80 posted on 01/03/2009 5:46:58 AM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Laur

So what? Naturally, people want to convert you. They cite the scripture to you? Learn to cite back. I did. The Protestant beliefs are not consistent with scripture, Catholic beliefs are. Read up and fight.


81 posted on 01/03/2009 12:56:23 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Huber

“Born Again? I can’t help it if He got it right the first time!” -— Dennis Miller


82 posted on 01/03/2009 1:01:43 PM PST by Clemenza (Red is the Color of Virility, Blue is the Color of Impotence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“So what? Naturally, people want to convert you. They cite the scripture to you? Learn to cite back. I did. The Protestant beliefs are not consistent with scripture, Catholic beliefs are. Read up and fight.”

I guess that’s where we differ. I feel no need to defend my religious beliefs; nor do I intend to try to convert people via an exchange of scriptural passages. That’s usually just gamesmanship.

If someone is truly searching for meaning, that’s one thing — and not what I’m talking about. Most people, however, are just proselytizing and have little interest in any but their own interpretation of various passages.

I don’t enjoy being accosted merely because someone is enthusiastic about having been “saved.”

But that’s another subject entirely.


83 posted on 01/03/2009 2:12:06 PM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Laur
I feel no need to defend my religious beliefs; nor do I intend to try to convert people via an exchange of scriptural passages. That’s usually just gamesmanship

Two things about that. First, I was reacting to your irritation toward the proselytizers. That is generally unfounded, as Christians are called to proselytize. So it becoems your duty to at least point out that the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years with a different from his understadning of John 3:5, and that you trust your Church better than his pastor on that. This will not require a doctorate in theology to say. Certainly, you might want to add that the very premise of arguing from scripture alone is unscriptural.

Second, if you find proselytizing irritating, wait till you see persecution, and that, I think, is just around the corner.

84 posted on 01/04/2009 11:15:39 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: annalex

” First, I was reacting to your irritation toward the proselytizers. That is generally unfounded, as Christians are called to proselytize.

I don’t believe so. Christians are called upon to live their lives as Christians, which is in itself giving evidence of the teachings. Knocking on doors and accosting people at work is not a requirement, imo.

That doesn’t mean, as I said before, that a discussion of beliefs and reasons isn’t a wonderful thing, provided it’s in information-gathering mode and not just scriptural jai-alai.

“...it becoems your duty to at least point out that the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years....”

I haven’t said that I was a Catholic, but I’d be happy to point that out, if asked.


85 posted on 01/04/2009 11:50:16 AM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Laur
Knocking on doors and accosting people at work is not a requirement

Indeed, -- but at the same time I cannot be irritated if someone interprets the Grand Commission that way.

I like to tell this story. Two Mormon teenager boys appeared at our door on bikes. I said that we were both Church going Christians, I was Catholic and my wife was Protestant (Baptist) at the time. They politely asked when it would be possible to witness to us both and assured me that they were not going to drag down our faith. I asked them to come Saturday afternoon, and they showed up. We had a pleasant conversation, they explained how the Mormon faith was different, and quoted some canonical scripture where they thought their Christology is more correct, then showed the Book of Mormon and gave us the outline of Joseph Smith's revelations. Ann and I expressed why we remain sceptical and we pointed out that the scripture translation they used was different from both King James and Douay. They said that this discussion was over their heads technically and that they could send someone better equipped to argue with us. We told them that it would be mutual waste of time.

Before departing, they asked us to sing a hymn for us, and they sang it, beautifully, a capella, with their breaking boy voices.

Here is the point of it: these kids were admirable. I wish my kids had the courage of their conviction to go door to door like that. We should learn from them, -- not their doctrines but their character.

This encounter made a deep impression on my wife Ann, especially. It showed us how easy it is to construct mythical theology out of a few misunderstood Bible verses. She was firmly on her way to become Catholic after that, and she came to the Catholic Chruch last Easter.

I am very thankful to these boys. It showed us the mystery of faith in its most fragile, where a bit of fake authority and a bit of fake history adds up to severe yet deeply held heresy. It made us better Catholics.

86 posted on 01/04/2009 12:13:48 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“Here is the point of it: these kids were admirable.”

No quarrel here: they were fulfilling the mandate of their particular religion to do this. Mormons are often in my neighborhood doing that part of their mission work.

I, too, admire their steadfastness. Unlike you, however, I’m not interested in the exchanges that will change neither of our minds.


87 posted on 01/04/2009 2:59:59 PM PST by Laur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson